|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Canadian PM Eyes Ban on ‘Assault-Style Weapons’ After Mass Shooting
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau promised a ban on “assault-style weapons,” following the hours-long shooting spree that lasted Saturday night through Sunday morning and left at least 18 dead in Nova Scotia.
Buzzfeed reported that the attacker, Gabriel Wortman, was allegedly “looking for a former significant other” when the killing spree began. He used “a replica police vehicle and what looked like a Royal Canadian Mounted Police uniform to pull over random drivers and execute them on the spot.”
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/22/2020)
|
Doesn't Canada already have a ban on assault weapons? ? ?
Perhaps banning them again will work ...... *sigh* |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(4/22/2020)
|
Double secret banning!!!!!!
Lets put Nedimier on it!!!! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/22/2020)
|
AFRet, I see you watched "The Negotiator" yesterday, too.
[grin] |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
